Wood Green

[Christopher Kreuzer]

http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/match_car ... n=20122013

9-1; 7.5-1.5; 12-0. Five double-defaults (out of a potential 36 games). That's not strictly chess prevention, but it does show how complicated things can get when you are trying to run three teams in the same division (in this case the three Drunken Knights teams).

This (from last season) raised some eyebrows at my club.

That's strange. Cavendish 2 looked to have won that 6-5 (against Cavendish 1), but looking at the tables:

http://www.londonchess.org.uk/tables_di ... n=20112012
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/table_cro ... n=20112012

It was scored as a draw, and Cavendish 2 were relegated on 3.5 match points, half a match point behind your team (Streatham & Brixton 1).

PS. I saw the adjourned position between you and Stewart Reuben at the Cavendish 1 vs Streatham & Brixton 1 match a few weeks ago (I was playing in a match taking place in the same venue). Fascinating position.

[Sean Hewitt]

The kind of free for all that you propose may work in the 4NCL and the big London leagues but is not acceptable for smaller local leagues.

Are you reading my actual posts? I presume that you can't be as at no point have I suggested a free for all.

The Stockport league, with which you are familiar, has rules which deal with player eligibility. They are of the type that I am in favour of. They are not a free for all.

[Angus French]

That's strange. Cavendish 2 looked to have won that 6-5 (against Cavendish 1), but looking at the tables:

http://www.londonchess.org.uk/tables_di ... n=20112012
http://www.londonchess.org.uk/table_cro ... n=20112012

It was scored as a draw, and Cavendish 2 were relegated on 3.5 match points, half a match point behind your team (Streatham & Brixton 1).

Ha! I was about to praise the software for scoring a won match as a draw and saving my team from relegation but then I saw that the sum of match points for Cavendish 2 (3 points) came to less than the whole (3.5)! (So Cavendish 2 did beat Cavendish 1.)

[Roger de Coverly]

Where the proposed mechanism to achieve that perceived fairness it to prevent some people from playing chess then yes, of course.

The 4NCL ([edit] Woodhouse etc. in Yorkshire as well [/edit] )has the advantage or disadvantage against all other leagues that all matches take place at the same time. The prohibition on playing two games at the same time makes it impossible to play more than 11 games in a season.

In all other leagues, the matches are staggered, so even if you preserve a round by round structure, it becomes possible for players to play for multiple teams in the notional same round. You then get league rules to control this, rules which state how distinct teams have to be in practice and rules which require a first team to be nominally stronger than the second team..

[MartinCarpenter]

The Yorkshire league(s) is/are simulataneous Saturdays too. Agree that things get much messier if you have non simultaneous matches and teams effectively sharing players wholesale. I'm not half as sure about that sort of situation.

For nearly all leagues the question of artifical strengthening surely isn't very relevant? OK the current 4NCL situation with those registrations and the potential for half/an entire team to move down a team does seem just a little bit silly.

For most leagues though that just doesn't happen. So the basic problem is what happens with 'spare' players. Say you need to field 8 player over 11 matches through the year. Realistically that needs a squad of 12(+) players. When everyone is available some of the lower players will then inevitably drop off the bottom.

Any league then needs to decide whether they're more worried about those players missing some games, or second team strengths varying a bit through the year. I think I prefer to be quite liberal here but you can see logic either way. What shouldn't happen is letting people play down when the second team is a division below and then stopping them doing so if/when it gets promoted.

[Roger de Coverly]

For nearly all leagues the question of artifical strengthening surely isn't very relevant?

It tends not to happen in practice that often, but where there are a number of overlapping clubs and leagues, you might get players who normally don't take part in a league being "borrowed" from other clubs for critical matches or even where there's a shortage of available players.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The sceptics have been proven right: Wood Green are now "only" registering Ivanchuk and Shirov. (In other breaking news, the World Chess Championship will probably not take place in India in November, our economy is not recovering and England probably won't win the World Cup in Brazil next year).

I haven't the energy to comment on the previous eight pages other than to agree with Richard that having two separate team lists for two teams in the same division (or indeed in different divisions) is a disaster. We did indeed do it in 1998/9, for various (bad) reasons, and found that it just meant that both teams did badly. The worst time was in March 1999. I had expected a full first team some four weeks beforehand and found myself having to drop previous board seven Stewart Haslinger (!) because of course he could not "drop" into the second team - a very difficult phone call, since I already expected that he would become a great player one day. Then other players started to drop out through work (and illness, because Stewart later became unavailable anyway). Unable to draw on anyone in the second team, I had to ask 17 people to play one game as a wildcard to fill the first team. With just one day to go, Lorin d'Costa's dad agreed.

That, admittedly, has proven to be a very happy outcome indeed - and in case you are wondering he won us that match on his debut - but I still wouldn't want to go through that week in March 1999 again... First team defaulting? Ridiculous!!

[JustinHorton]

This (from last season) raised some eyebrows at my club.

I thought that said Antony Miles. Raised my eyebrows all right.

[Simon Ansell]

The sceptics have been proven right: Wood Green are now "only" registering Ivanchuk and Shirov. (In other breaking news, the World Chess Championship will probably not take place in India in November, our economy is not recovering and England probably won't win the World Cup in Brazil next year).

I haven't the energy to comment on the previous eight pages other than to agree with Richard that having two separate team lists for two teams in the same division (or indeed in different divisions) is a disaster. We did indeed do it in 1998/9, for various (bad) reasons, and found that it just meant that both teams did badly. The worst time was in March 1999. I had expected a full first team some four weeks beforehand and found myself having to drop previous board seven Stewart Haslinger (!) because of course he could not "drop" into the second team - a very difficult phone call, since I already expected that he would become a great player one day. Then other players started to drop out through work (and illness, because Stewart later became unavailable anyway). Unable to draw on anyone in the second team, I had to ask 17 people to play one game as a wildcard to fill the first team. With just one day to go, Lorin d'Costa's dad agreed.

That, admittedly, has proven to be a very happy outcome indeed - and in case you are wondering he won us that match on his debut - but I still wouldn't want to go through that week in March 1999 again... First team defaulting? Ridiculous!!

In other words, exactly the kind of problems that most single-team 4NCL "clubs" have to deal with on a regular basis!

I don't think for a minute that separate lists for multiple team clubs is a good idea - but there is definitely some room for manoeuvre to make the playing field more level - and I still haven't heard a good argument as to why "you can't play more than once against the same team" is not viable, excepting my esteemed teammates vague "well it's just an extra restriction" - is it too late to bring this rule in in time for Saturday ?

[Roger de Coverly]

I notice most other leagues have rules in place to prevent this happening, perhaps we should propose an addition to our league rules.

Or don't have such rules, but an implied code of conduct regarding such behaviour as unethical. Players who hardly ever play do present a dilemma. If you nominate them in your first team, they allow a first team player also to play for the second team. If you don't, that still leaves the ghost free to play for the second team unless you come up with complex rule dealing with the eligibility of substitute players.

[Sean Hewitt]

Yes I can read thank you.

I'm delighted to hear it. But I didn't ask if you could read - just whether you were reading my posts.

Good of you to draw my attention to the Stockport league rules, i hadnt looked at them in detail before as they dont really affect my team, but it has highlighted a problem I wasn't aware of.
It won't surprise you to know that it involves your team.
The top four players registered are unable to play in the second division, but by cleverly registering a player who has played no games you have allowed your fifth best player to compete regularly in the second division.

You might want to double check your facts before making such statements in a public forum. You wouldn't want to look like a plonker by getting it completely wrong, would you?

[Jonathan Rogers]

The sceptics have been proven right: Wood Green are now "only" registering Ivanchuk and Shirov. (In other breaking news, the World Chess Championship will probably not take place in India in November, our economy is not recovering and England probably won't win the World Cup in Brazil next year).

I haven't the energy to comment on the previous eight pages other than to agree with Richard that having two separate team lists for two teams in the same division (or indeed in different divisions) is a disaster. We did indeed do it in 1998/9, for various (bad) reasons, and found that it just meant that both teams did badly. The worst time was in March 1999. I had expected a full first team some four weeks beforehand and found myself having to drop previous board seven Stewart Haslinger (!) because of course he could not "drop" into the second team - a very difficult phone call, since I already expected that he would become a great player one day. Then other players started to drop out through work (and illness, because Stewart later became unavailable anyway). Unable to draw on anyone in the second team, I had to ask 17 people to play one game as a wildcard to fill the first team. With just one day to go, Lorin d'Costa's dad agreed.

That, admittedly, has proven to be a very happy outcome indeed - and in case you are wondering he won us that match on his debut - but I still wouldn't want to go through that week in March 1999 again... First team defaulting? Ridiculous!!

In other words, exactly the kind of problems that most single-team 4NCL "clubs" have to deal with on a regular basis!

Well, yes, but one of the expected benefits of having two teams is that you don't have to drop a good player altogether when he doesn't make your top team; when you even have to do that, as is the case when you have separate lists, then you get very little benefit at all. That was the only point I was making.

You asked elsewhere I think what good do second teams do for others, and in the 4NCL, they pay high entry fees and they are very good vehicles for bringing through young players from an early stage in a lower division. Sam Collins, Lawrence Trent, Lorin d'Costa, Sam Franklin, Isaac Sanders etc all played games in the second division in their first full season for Barbican. They also allow big teams to field a strong first team, since they have a greater number of players to choose from, and that is generally what we want to see in the 4NCL (teams which are as strong as possible). Note that the chief beneficiary is usually the first team, at the expense of the second team. If a second team player is in brilliant form, he may be taken selfishly by the first team during the season if the rules permit it. If the first team is understrength the second team loses its best player to it; if the first team has a surplus, all it will give back in return someone who is not having a very good season.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I don't think for a minute that separate lists for multiple team clubs is a good idea - but there is definitely some room for manoeuvre to make the playing field more level - and I still haven't heard a good argument as to why "you can't play more than once against the same team" is not viable, excepting my esteemed teammates vague "well it's just an extra restriction" - is it too late to bring this rule in in time for Saturday ?

This exact rule was suggested in 2004 or so and I remember writing a six page document on its impact, after which it was dropped. So it has been considered fully in the past, though your esteemed team mate mainly has it right - it is a profoundly arbitrary rule, and I would add, it will harm the amateur clubs rather the Wood Green/Guildford clubs who are always the real target of those who wish to impose such rules. It can also cause defaults. Simple example - our first team was relatively weak v Cambridge in round one this year and I played in the match. Now our first team will be stronger and I shouldn't be in it on Saturday - would you bar me from playing against cambridge again, now they are playing our second team? Even though in truth I am not much if any better than the other second team players? Even if my absence were to lead in turn to a default in the youth team? Even though, when the first team played Cambridge, I could have had no idea that our second team would necessarily play Cambridge at all this season? And so on.

Wel, no, you will say. You aren't really thinking of such cases as this. No one cares if I play v Cambridge twice, least of all Cambridge. You are thinking more about GMs, people like Kosten, Plaskett and Flear (or whoever played for Guildford 1 against you) descending into Guildford 2. Well, this proposed rule hurts the likes of Barbican much more than the sponsored teams. With money at their disposal, the sponsored teams can always rest such players for the odd match if they have to, and still pay them, and they can pay for equally strong players, who haven't yet played for the first team, to similarly strengthen the side instead and avoid any defaults going down the chain. To some extent that was what Wood Green 2 did against you in 2003/4, when they suddenly produced Tiger Persson. It's the money that makes the difference.

Incidentally, I am amused by the concern you have over playing Guildford 2. How do you suppose they feel, having to play you and Wood Green 2 ?

[Richard Bates]

Incidentally, I am amused by the concern you have over playing Guildford 2. How do you suppose they feel, having to play you and Wood Green 2 ?

I am more amused with the dilemma that Guildford 2 are facing - namely that their best perfomers are the players likely to be dropped in the event of them strengthening

On the "not able to play against the same team twice issue", I would reinforce Jonathan's argument based on his own situation by using the concrete example i quoted earlier in a different context:

Suppose a team plays a second team at full strength early in the season (players 9-16 in the squad). Later in the season the same team plays the first team suffering from a couple of unavailabilities. Since the first team in question are now unable to draw on players 9-16, and in fact players 17+ because of the 80 pt rule, they are likely forced to default 2 boards. Unless they recruit a couple of players who have no connection with their squad. Whereas a single team squad with, say, 12 players would not face this problem. That's all leaving aside any necessary loopholes which would have to be drawn up to account for the gender balance rule.

[Simon Ansell]

You asked elsewhere I think what good do second teams do for others...

That wasn't me, although you may have requoted from some other thread? I have nothing against second teams, on the contrary - I agree with everything you say here!

This exact rule was suggested in 2004 or so and I remember writing a six page document on its impact, after which it was dropped.

I wasn't aware of that - do you still have the document?

You can give specific examples whereby this rule (that I only proposed a few hours ago - without much thought) is inappropiate, I can give them where it is appropriate - e.g the recent Middlesex League example I gave earlier in this very thread. I am just trying to explore the options and find some middle ground here. Most posters seem to be strictly to one extreme or the other, I think there is probably some room for manouvre, as I stated.

I'm not concerned about playing Guildford 2 - I'm concerned about playing Guildford 1 for the second time this season!